Argument from Scripture for Universal Restoration.

inconsistency of our system. Let them know that we have no differences among us, that are inconsistent with the simplicity and integrity of Christian worship, or unfeigned subjection to the moral precepts of the gospel; and all differences of another description we hold it a duty and privilege to respect in our brethren. The weekly lectures I have alluded to, are adapted to bring these varieties of opinion into view; and as it is likely that each preacher will state on such occasions, the strongest grounds upon which he supposes his peculiar views to rest, they afford a fair opportunity of canvassing fully those subjects which may be considered as principally of Unitarian growth and culture. The result must be, the more speedy detection of the weakest parts of the system, and the stronger confirmation of its unquestionable truths. I am sure your valuable Miscellany will be always open to every proper attempt to promote these objects. Permit me then to offer a few thoughts on the lecture delivered by Mr. Fox, at Worship Street, on Thursday, Nov. 28th. The subject was, The final happiness of all inen predicted in the Scripture.

The perspicuity and energy of the preacher's style, the unhesitating and copious appeals to the express declarations of Scripture, the brilliant eloquence, the correct and classical taste with which it was delivered, did great honour to Mr. F. and was eminently calculated by immediate impression to silence objections, and to satisfy the advocates for the opinion defended, that the whole was unanswerable. I suppose few persons who were present could be insensible that the dazzling Justre thrown upon the subject, rendered scepticism for the moment almost impossible. For myself I had several powerful incitements to faith, such as, my high esteem for the preacher, whom I am permitted to call my friend; a strong wish that the position expressed in the title of the lecture might be true; nay further, a persuasion that the doctrine of the final happiness of all men is a most rational conclusion, from the known character of the Deity, from the observed tendencies of Providence, and from many very plain declarations of Scripture: so that as an inferential doctrine I hold it as strongly, as perbaps a doctrine ought to be held,

VOL. XI.

701

which rests apparently only on that foundation. But with all this predisposition in favour of the subject, will you believe it, Mr. Editor, I remained unconvinced. For it must be observed, as Mr. F. very correctly. told us, his business was not to prove the doctrine by reason, nor to trace its natural production from other known truths of Christianity, nor to shew how many preponderating arguments might be accumulated to make it almost certain to every one that the truth was on that side; but it was to shew that the fact itself was predicted in the Scripture. Hoc est opus, hic labor. This if I am not mistaken he failed to accomplish. Nor can it be thought any depreciation of his ta lents to say this. He did all that can be done, all that his various predecessors have done, and did it in my estimation in a better manner than any of them; but the proposition itself is too strong to be borne out by Scripture, and what in such a case can any man do? Of the texts adduced as predictions of the ultimate deliverance of all men from sin and misery, there appeared to me none but what were capable of a very different explication without any torture. It was certainly very injurious to alledge Matt. xxv., 46. No doubt punishment may be corrective as well as vindictive; and everlasting very frequently means a limited duration: but I cannot think it would ever enter into the thoughts of a common reader of the Scripture that the expression, "shall go away into everlasting punishment," should mean a prediction of the final happiness of the wicked.

Romans viii. 19-23, seems as little to the purpose. Suffice it to say that "the world itself may be delivered from the bondage of corruption, being universally blessed with the liberty of God's children;" during a long period of paradisaical happiness in which the wicked who are dead, shall not be partakers. As for the phrase "our selves also which have the first fruits of the spirit," it does not seem as Mr. F. supposes to refer to the body of true Christians in this life in contradistinction from the wicked, who he thinks will be the last fruits of redeeming grace; but it evidently points to the Apostles and primitive Christians who partook of those eminent gifts of the Holy Spirit which

distinguished and sealed the commencement of Christianity. Yet highly favoured as they were, they looked forward to the resurrection of the dead as their final and best deliverance.

1 Corinthians xv. 24-28, Mr. F. thought so decisive of the question, as to render elucidation unnecessary, its language being scarcely explicable on any other principle. Upon a repeated perusal of this passage, I am constrained to say that it does not appear to teach any thing like the doctrine of final restoration. The whole of the Apostle's reasonings and predictions throughout the chapter relate to the resurrection of the dead. It is quite a gratuitous assumption, that the end," in ver. 24, signifies something beyond the resurrection and judgment. Nor can it be granted, for the end of Christ's mediatorial government is when the last enemy death is destroyed, ver. 26, that is when all the dead are raised to die no more; then shall he deliver up the kingdom to the Father, and himself be subject like the rest of his brethren, to that arrangement which infinite wisdom may appoint to follow the present dispensation. The Scriptures seem uniformly, to speak of the general judgment of mankind, as the last act of Christ's administration of the moral government of the world. And as the Christian Scriptures only speak of things belonging to the Christian dispensation, all beyond is left at present involved in impenetrable mystery.

Philippians ii. 10, 11, is another text, quoted as a prediction of the glorious restoration of all men from sin and punishment, by their being brought to confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, &c. The whole passage in its connection is a declaration of the glory conferred upon Jesus Christ in reward of his humility and obedience unto death. This reward as we learn from many other passages consists in his being invested with authority over all men, and made their final judge, to reward or punish every one according to their deeds. Every knee therefore will bow to him, and every tongue confess that he is Lord, in that day when even the wicked must answer for themselves at his righteous tribunal. This text therefore does not necessarily imply any thing beyond.

Some passages were mentioned ass

auxiliary evidences of the truth of the doctrine, though not insisted upon as predictions of the faet. Such as Ephes. i. 10, That in the dispen sation of the fulness of times, he might gather together in one all things in Christ, &c." But as it is well known that "the fulness of times” is a phrase used by Paul to signify the time of Christ's first coming into the world, (see Gal. iv. 4,) I do not see that any thing more is meant in the highly figurative passage in question, than that during the gospel dispensation the distinction of Jew and Gentile should be done away in religious matters, and Christ be the one head of one great body of believers, as is afterwards insisted on.

1 Timothy ii. 4, “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." I think Macknight has shewn, that the original word here translated "will," has the force of the verb command, as also in, ver. 8, "I will (command) that men pray every where, &e." God in sending his gospel to the nations, "commandeth all men every where to repent," Acts xvii. 30, which is the same as commanding them “to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." It seems therefore unwarrantable to extend the signification of this passage to a future state of being. I do not know, whether the next text was adduced by Mr. F. or not, for I only write from recollection-but I have heard it mentioned by others and therefore notice it here.

1 Timothy iv. 10, “The Saviour of all men, specially of those who believe." The Apostle is speaking, as the connexion shews, of the dangers and hardships he was exposed to in preaching the gospel and he says he trusted in the protection of the living God who is the Saviour (or Preserver) of all men, but particularly so of sincere and active Christians who devote themselves to his glory. But what has this to do with the universal happiness of mankind?

If any other passages were produced they have escaped my memory; but upon a review of these, I would ask any impartial person, whether here is any thing like a prediction of that sublime and astonishing scene, the brilliancy of which overpowers. the imagination of him who most cont fidently expects it, and fills the believer

On Mr. Hume's Argument against Miracles.

of it with rapture in contemplation of
an whole universe filled with life,
happiness and love? I am not one of
those who think the news too good to
be true.
I have already expressed my
belief that as a deduction from pre-
mises already admitted, concerning
the Divine perfections and govern-
ment, the doctrine is a highly rational
one, and what every culightened
reasoner must feel disposed to receive.
But I am afraid we go too far when
we presume to ascribe this doctrine to
Jesus Christ or his Apostles. They
certainly predicted some events in
terins sufficiently distinct and clear,
such as the resurrection and a future
judgment, e.g. God hath appointed
a day in which he will judge the
world in righteousness by that man
whom he hath ordained." "The
trumpet shall sound and the dead shall
be raised incorruptible." And it was
just as easy for them to have said, the
wicked shall be severely punished for a
while, but shall afterwards be brought
to repentance and be saved, if they had
been appointed to reveal any thing
upon this subject.

Finally, Sir, it appears that the New Testament is completely silent on this subject, which some of our brethren seem so anxious to make a part of Christian belief; and when we reflect on what has been the consequence in former ages, of admitting various additions to the primitive doctrine, merely because they seemed to be deducible from certain texts illunderstood, or to result from principles already established, or were supported by the authority of eminent names, Unitarians cannot be too careful how they enlarge their creed. A certain class of the orthodox consider their preachers inspired, and every thing uttered from the pulpit has the force of Divine truth; it is with them the word of God. But as Unitarian preachers make no such claim, it will be the indelible disgrace of their hearers, if they have no better reason for their belief, than that such are the opinions of their teachers. I am, Sir, Your's, &c.

I

R. L.

SIR, Dec. 3, 1816. AGREE with your excellent Correspondent, Mr. Cogan, in your last Number, (p. 644,) that Mr.

703

Hume's argument against miracles is inconclusive, and that testimony. may be of a nature to amount to absolute certainty, and of certainty there can be no degrees. Probability" is a word by which we express nothing but our ignorance of causes; and, in fact, no event ever took place, agreeable to the laws of nature, that was or could be previously improbable. Such an event may have appeared to us improbable, from our ignorance of existing causes; but, certainly, whatever has taken place, to him who knew all the causes in action, was not in the slightest degree improbable. We are somewhat acquainted with the laws that govern human testimony, but we are in general wholly ignorant of the previous circumstances, which produce any given event, in all cases where testimony is wanted; for of our own transactions we want not

testimony. It is then, perhaps, not correct to say, that a very slight testimony will overcome a greater previous improbability for of any given fact, there was in the thing itself no previons improbability, and we are always conscious that what we call' improbable, is only owing to our ignorance of causes, of which ignorance we are also conscious, as to.; almost every occurrence where testimony can be required. Still this argument which sets aside all previous improbability, supposes that the fact contemplated happened according to the operation of known general laws; and as all we see and observe may be explained, when the particulars are known, by these general laws, there will still attach to the mind a sense of improbability, when a fact is reported, in contradiction to the known opera"tion of these general laws. For instance, Mr. Cogan, in spite of himself, would require stronger and more circumstantial testimony, to satisfy him that a man had risen from the dead, than that a man had died. How does this feeling arise, for it is evident that if this be the fact, testimony is sufficient to ascertain it? It arises, I presume, from such a fact being contrary to general experience, and to its being à violation of a known general law. Now this gives a certain degree of force to Hume's reasoning, and I think it must be admitted that it seems" to shew that testimony should be here of the strongest kind.

moral discourse. The epithet dry is so frequently applied to morality, that F wish to know what there is in it to justify or occasion its being so called. I think it must meet some morbid quality in the mind which receives it with disgust; to such a mind, how very dry and disgusting must be our Saviour's Serinon on the Mount, as that is entirely composed of moral precepts. Were these precepts reduced to practice, it would so improve the mental taste and moral constitution, that what is now dry and disgusting would be received even with a zest that happy union would then take place between faith and works which constitutes the religion of Christ.

I think it to be impossible for any man to read of the miracles of the second and third centuries of the Christian æra, without being more inclined to disbelieve the miracles than to believe the testimony. But why? From a lurking suspicion, of which the improbability of such miracles is the foundation. He begins to question the testimony, and to bring for ward certain general reasons against its credibility, such as that it was then the interest of many that such miracles be believed, and that men's minds were then prepared to receive easy proof of miracles. But these are only general and indeed very flimsy reasons, by which to impeach the veracity, or observation, of multitudes of religious men, who were ready to suffer death for religion, and many of whom did suffer death. If we make thus free with human testimony at this distance of time, when the circumstances are to us most imperfectly known, where are we to stop? I fully agree with Mr. Cogan, that the degree of testimony is to determine the particular question concerning any miracles, and I am quite sure that testimony may be such as to establish any fact, be it miraculous or otherwise. As the human mind is constituted, rarity passes for improbability, and one miraculous fact being established, the conceived improbability of others is diminished, until their frequent occurrence takes away all sense of improbability from the mind, and their proof becomes as easy as that of any other fact. In the abstract, therefore, there is nothing in Mr. Hume's argument. ment, yet it is one which will ever carry with it an imposing air of reason. If these remarks procure us a few inore lines from Mr. Cogan, your readers will be pleased.

YOUR

A. B. C.

SIR, Bristol, Nov. 25, 1816. YOUR valuable Miscellany frequently contains hints to ministers for their improvement in the mode of conducting their pulpit exercises. In your Repository of last month (p. 584), J. B. recommends it to Unitarian ministers to preach statedly once a fortnight upon a doctrinal or controversial subject-those who invite their friends to this treat, would not then be pained by their disappointment and disgust at hearing in its stead a dry,

That Unitarian ministers should oc casionally preach doctrinal sermons, and defend their opinions against their opponents, is useful and necessary; but while so many preachers are depreciating morality (and the relish with which this is received their crowded audiences declare), it behoves the former rather to increase than to abate their exertions in that important part of their Master's work, the enforcing the precepts of the gospel. Who are they whom the Scriptures dignify by the appellation of his peculiar people? those who are zealous of good works.

I would recommend it to J. B. when he invites his friends to a controversial entertainment at a Unitarian chapel, to warn them of the possibility of their meeting with only inoral fare, which though less palatable, may, if it does not meet a disposition to indigestion, afford solid and wholesome nourishA."

I

SIR,

Dec. 3, 1816. WISH our friends at Edinburgh all possible success in their plan of raising a fund for a new chapel, and shall be happy to contribute my mite to so desirable an object: I think, however, they would do well, in the first instance, to imitate the conduct of their brethren at York, Thorne, &c.— see what they can raise among themselves, and then lay their case before the public.

There seems no mode of supporting the great cause of Unitarianism so free from objection, as that of giving èncouragement to the building and rebuilding of chapels, where circumstances render such measures prudent. Let us therefore hope, that as chapels

Some Observations on the Sermons of Missionaries.

are called for, they will receive prompt as well as general support. The Unitarians are a wealthy body; and if, on every such occasion, a small number only of those who are able would immediately subscribe, cach, his guinea, a most important object would be easily obtained.